The court emphasized that in second appeals, it must identify and frame substantial questions of law, confining its jurisdiction to these formalized issues. Substantial questions must bear real significance in the case's outcome.

JUDGMENT :

“12. ---Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 100 says that the second appeal would be entertained by the High Court only it the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Sub-section (3) makes it obligatory upon the appellant to precisely state in memo of appeal the "substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Sub-section (4) provides that where the High Court is satisfied that any substantial question of law is involved in the case, it shall formulate that question. In other words, once the High Court is satisfied after hearing the appellant or his counsel, as the case may be, that the appeal involves a substantial question of law, it has to formulate that question and then direct Issuance of notice to the respondent of the memo of appeal along with the question of law framed by the High Court. Sub-section (5) provides that the appeal shall be heard only on the question formulated by the High Court under sub-section (4) In other words, the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the second appeal is confined only to the question framed by the High Court under sub-section (4). TIP respondent, however, at the time of hearing of the appeal is given a right under sub-section (51 to raise an objection that the question framed by the High Court under sub-section (41 does not involve in the appeal. The reason for giving this right to the respondent for raising such objection al the time of heating is because the High Court frames the question at the stage of admission, which is prior to issuance of the notice of appeal to the respondent. In other words, the question is framed ex parte and, therefore, sub-section (5) enables him to raise such objection at the time of hearing that the question framed does not arise in the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (5), however, also recognizes the power of the High Court to hear the appeal on any other substantial question of law which was not initially framed by the High Court under sub-section (4). However, this power can be exercised by the High Court only after assigning the reasons for framing such additional question of law at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

“I- Whether in view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff has not led any evidence nor the Courts below have recorded any finding that on the date of vesting the plaintiff was in possession over the land in dispute is his appurtenant land.

II- Whether the Courts below were justified in deoreeing the plaintiff’s suit on the ground that the same is the Sahan land of the plaintiff-respondent?

III- Whether in view of the admitted fact that the defendant- appellant purchased a portion of plot No. 173 ( Subject matter of the suit in dispute) and the plaintiff having filed a suit for injunction on whom the burden lay to prove and in the absence of any evidence or proof whether the suit is to be decreed on the erroneous assumption that the defendant has failed to discharge the burden and whether such a judgment can be sustained in law.

IV- Whether the Courts below were justified in deciding the suit and the appeal on misreading of true state of affairs and whether their decisions are vitiated in law.”

“It does not appear from a perusal of the record that the lower Court committed any illegality in as much as it came to the conclusion that the Map prepared by the Amin was not correct although it had confirmed that very map earlier. That would take the defendant unawares and if at the time of the Judgment, the Court below came to the conclusion that the map was not correct, it could set aside the same but should have called upon the defendant to have got another map prepared, particularly when if has been admitted by Wajid Ali (P.W.3) that the disputed land formed part of plot No.173. This illegality would have been sufficient for setting aside the judgment passed by that Court below, but in the peculiar circumstances of this case, that is of no consequences, as I shall presently show. It is